Since Mayor Rob Ford is intent on making paralegals out of all of us, let’s play along for a bit. After all, everyone was able to accurately predict that Ford would get a stay of execution Wednesday, and be allowed to keep his job until his appeal is heard Jan. 7, and ruled on by February at latest.

Legal opinion on everything is mixed and varied and worth about as much as you are willing to pay for it. So, beware free advice. With that said:

Why did the judge approve the application for the stay of the guilty verdict?

Common sense, as well as legal arguments, decreed it. Imagine this bizarre scenario: Ford out as mayor Dec. 10 due to his conflict of interest conviction. Council replaces him through appointment or byelection. Ford wins appeal. Toronto has two mayors.

So this was a no-brainer decision. To cement it, the court had to ensure that Ford and his lawyer were not just trying to delay the penalty indefinitely and frustrate the court’s ruling. The fact that the appeal date is coming so quickly removed that concern. Clearly, the decision is in the public interest.

Is the appeal being made before the same judge?

Justice Charles Hackland found Ford guilty, Nov. 26. Madam Justice Gladys Pardu suspended the verdict on Wednesday, until the Jan. 7 appeal. A separate panel of three judges will hear the appeal in the Divisional Court.

Can it drag on for so long as to keep Ford in office, beyond a time that council can call a byelection?

That’s not expected. Ford’s lawyer Alan Lenczner told Justice Pardu that the January appeal should take one day of legal arguments from him and from his opponent Clayton Ruby. How quickly the panel of judges return a verdict is anyone’s guess, but the expectation is for a ruling within weeks, not months. So, if Ford loses the appeal, council could possibly have a byelection completed and a newly elected mayor in place by May.

BTW, doesn’t Ford have a legitimate claim against staff for not warning him about his conflict?

I asked, though I knew the answer. The city’s official response: “The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act indicates that it is the responsibility of the member of council to disclose a conflict of interest. It is not appropriate for the clerk to provide personal legal advice to any member of council. Councillors, if they wish, may seek advice from the integrity commissioner.”

As you know, Ford rejected the integrity commissioner’s written advice six times, and eschewed numerous other interventions.

Will Ford win the appeal?

Pay me more and I might give you a different answer. Ford’s lawyer offered little new on Wednesday in outlining the arguments he’ll use to convince the panel of judges that Justice Hackland erred in his judgment.

Lenczner will argue city council had no authority to rule Ford repay the $3,150 he received from lobbyists (contrary to the code of conduct) because repayment is not one of the two penalties listed by the code. As such, council’s action was illegal; and if it was, then Ford’s violations are nullified. Besides, council does not have the general right to add such penalties where the code or act does not specifically allow for them.

Secondly, conflict of interest rules are intended to deal with financial interest of the municipality while the code of conduct deals with the behaviour of council members. The judge erred by “conflating” or bringing them together.

Thirdly, Ford declared a conflict of interest on another issue at the very council meeting in February 2012 so he must have fallen prey to an “error in judgment” when he failed to declare a conflict regarding the $3,150.

Nothing new here. Justice Hackland pointedly rejected all the above arguments in a well-reasoned judgment. What three other judges will rule is enough to keep us playing Judge Brown or Judge Judy for weeks.

Judge James’ verdict: Hackland and the three judges conflate on this.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.